4 ms·

> So if that part of the article would have been adjusted to the present day situation that only thing that remains is that if these parties are your provider t

> So if that part of the article would have been adjusted to the present day situation that only thing that remains is that if these parties are your provider then they can indeed see which IP addresses you connect to You're saying that like it's nothing. Whatever happened to "metadata is often more revealing than data"? > As opposed to Facebook and Google being present on just about every webpage and gobbling up data about all the people on the planet that have internet access. You can trivially install Privacy Badger, Ghostery or any other number of tracker blockers that are available for free. Firefox comes built-in with a tracker blocker that's pretty good too. Every person on the planet has the option to opt out from FB and Google tracking. Using a VPN costs money. Some websites (eg. retailers, Netflix) aggressively block connections from VPN IPs which means you have to turn off your VPN and sacrifice your privacy to access those sites. Whereas I've never seen a site block you because you have Privacy Badger installed.

jacquesm 9y ago
> Whatever happened to "metadata is often more revealing than data"? That's true, but the article claims that the actual data is accessible which it isn't in most cases. And it's a bit in the nature of being an ISP, after all the only thing they are supposed to do is to take your packets and deliver them elsewhere, if they didn't do that then they wouldn't be in business at all. To the extent that this raises awareness of how the internet works under the hood I'm all for it but it is designed that way, it is not as if AT&T, Comcast and Verizon have gone out of their way to get this ability by injecting their content into each and every web page. > You can trivially install Privacy Badger, Ghostery or any other number of tracker blockers that are available for free. Yes, and I do. And most people do not. > Every person on the planet has the option to opt out from FB and Google tracking. Yes, but only a small percentage actually does so. And Google is present in so many market segments that in practice you will be interacting with it whether you want it or not even if you have a blocklist a mile long. Because that email you just sent to that innocent looking domain is actually gmail masquerading as some other domain. > Whereas I've never seen a site block you because you have Privacy Badger installed. I see this several times per week actually, usually related to some over-eager adblocker detector.
- jogjayr 9y ago
  > Yes, but only a small percentage actually does so. But they can and its free to do so. Opting out of ISP tracking costs money, when I'm already paying my ISP money. > it is not as if AT&T, Comcast and Verizon have gone out of their way to get this ability by injecting their content into each and every web page. Not for lack of trying[1]. Also Verizon now owns Yahoo and AOL which have some pretty large ad networks of their own. 1. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/09/why-comcasts-javascript-ad-injections-threaten-security-net-neutrality/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/09/why-comcasts-jav...
  - jacquesm 9y ago
    > Opting out of ISP tracking costs money, when I'm already paying my ISP money. All you will end up doing is giving someone else the same capability that your ISP has today. A VPN solves exactly nothing. > Not for lack of trying Yes, that's true they did try that. But then again, so did some registrars by hijacking domain names that were not in use. (And sometimes even when they were in use). But end-to-end encryption took care of that in a pretty definitive manner.
    - jogjayr 9y ago
      > A VPN solves exactly nothing. Maybe, maybe not. US ISPs operate as virtual monopolies in many markets - even if an ISP was tracking and monetizing online activity most customers don't have any recourse. In contrast, the VPN market is extremely competitive; there are dozens, maybe hundreds of providers. Privacy is one of the differentiating factors between them. It would be extremely risky for a VPN provider to claim "no logs" but actually store logs - a single data breach, rogue employee, or whistleblower could end their business. I'm not claiming VPNs are a desirable solution. The desirable solution is that ISPs don't track or otherwise monetize their customers' online activity.

jacquesm 9y ago

> Whatever happened to "metadata is often more revealing than data"? That's true, but the article claims that the actual data is accessible which it isn't in most cases. And it's a bit in the nature of being an ISP, after all the only thing they are supposed to do is to take your packets and deliver them elsewhere, if they didn't do that then they wouldn't be in business at all. To the extent that this raises awareness of how the internet works under the hood I'm all for it but it is designed that way, it is not as if AT&T, Comcast and Verizon have gone out of their way to get this ability by injecting their content into each and every web page. > You can trivially install Privacy Badger, Ghostery or any other number of tracker blockers that are available for free. Yes, and I do. And most people do not. > Every person on the planet has the option to opt out from FB and Google tracking. Yes, but only a small percentage actually does so. And Google is present in so many market segments that in practice you will be interacting with it whether you want it or not even if you have a blocklist a mile long. Because that email you just sent to that innocent looking domain is actually gmail masquerading as some other domain. > Whereas I've never seen a site block you because you have Privacy Badger installed. I see this several times per week actually, usually related to some over-eager adblocker detector.

jogjayr 9y ago
> Yes, but only a small percentage actually does so. But they can and its free to do so. Opting out of ISP tracking costs money, when I'm already paying my ISP money. > it is not as if AT&T, Comcast and Verizon have gone out of their way to get this ability by injecting their content into each and every web page. Not for lack of trying[1]. Also Verizon now owns Yahoo and AOL which have some pretty large ad networks of their own. 1. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/09/why-comcasts-javascript-ad-injections-threaten-security-net-neutrality/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/09/why-comcasts-jav...
- jacquesm 9y ago
  > Opting out of ISP tracking costs money, when I'm already paying my ISP money. All you will end up doing is giving someone else the same capability that your ISP has today. A VPN solves exactly nothing. > Not for lack of trying Yes, that's true they did try that. But then again, so did some registrars by hijacking domain names that were not in use. (And sometimes even when they were in use). But end-to-end encryption took care of that in a pretty definitive manner.
  - jogjayr 9y ago
    > A VPN solves exactly nothing. Maybe, maybe not. US ISPs operate as virtual monopolies in many markets - even if an ISP was tracking and monetizing online activity most customers don't have any recourse. In contrast, the VPN market is extremely competitive; there are dozens, maybe hundreds of providers. Privacy is one of the differentiating factors between them. It would be extremely risky for a VPN provider to claim "no logs" but actually store logs - a single data breach, rogue employee, or whistleblower could end their business. I'm not claiming VPNs are a desirable solution. The desirable solution is that ISPs don't track or otherwise monetize their customers' online activity.